Folks, the key words to research this topic are called
"section 230". It's a well-known and controversial debate.
(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer).
Wikipedia's lawyer will certainly tell you that Wikipedia is
completely protected under this theory, as it is his or her job to
say that (as indeed, has happened). Others, well, are not convinced,
to varying degrees of expertise in the topic. I have a blog post on it:
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001064.html
The wild card in the legal theorizing is whether Wikipedia's
effect might finally be enough to get the law *changed* by Congress, to
clarify that liability. It won't happen from the trashing of some
activists, or even minor celebrities. But if someone with enough
political influence decides to pursue the matter, I do think there
would be a base of support. There's certainly enough of a "parade of
horribles" to fuel an issue.
Right now, nobody powerful really wants to set off the legal
conflagration, because of the uncertainly of the outcome. But the more
people Wikipedia affects, the more likely that legal war will
eventually happen.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog -
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview:
http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php